Hogg off limits cause he's a "kid"..

On a # of sites where i am discussing politics, the tone often comes back to how the media, seem to be of the mindset david hogg's off limits for being criticized, "cause he is a kid". Even when he gets in someone's face and insults them, THEY can't reply with an insult back, as "hes off limits".

Someone likened it to several Us miltary vets, who said when they were deployed "we would often come under fire from the Taliban and other forces, but when they threw the kids at us shooting, we were told "DO not fire back"??! And that made me scratched my head.

WHY would a kid firing at you, be off limits, from firing back at? Especially if he had say, an RPG..

So who here's heard of that? Would YOU shoot back at a kid, if that kid was shooting at you?

I think some of what you saw on the news was skewed. Ground ROE was very clear, we had the absolute right of self defense, regardless of the apparent age of the person shooting at us. Granted, in that part of the world due to diet and that we (Americans) tend to be physically bigger than Middle Eastern men, a 25 year old Afghani may look to be 15. Regardless, in all my deployments i never was directed to not engage a hostile due to age. I have been directed to not engage adults and ‘kids’ when non combatant casualties were likely ... I think that was the right call. Could a patrol or platoon commanderor even HHQ have made the calls you are talking about? Yes, and that is within their legal authority and responsibility and that decision and the consequences is on them ... not the ROE. Trust me, I had and still have a strong desire to not get any of my people killed or die myself. At the same time I am a professional military ‘soldier’ ... I have no desire to kill one, a dozen or a hundred noncombatants to kill one hostile.

As far as David Hogg, like it or not ... he is /was a kid, he may be 18 now (not sure). Hogg and his classmates were put into a situation I never had to deal with as a high schooler; thief passion on the issue is understandable. I do also think the anti gun establishment is using these kids to further their cause, the right does the same thing with veterans or victims of crime. Hogg may be getting into someone’s face, how that some responds is as much a sign of their character as it is Hogg and the people supporting him. Hogg is no expert on gun control policy; he is a figurehead-like face of an issue that is being used by the left to forward a long-standing agenda ... exactly in the the same manner as the random PFC or SGT who was wounded in OEF or OIF who is brought out to talk about what we need to do in the Middle East regarding ISIS or Islamic extremism, not an expert in foreign policy just because they served and were wounded.

If the situation was somewhat reversed: a flag-waiving, football playing, right leaning kid whose school was shot up or bombed by a ISIS inspired terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar”... who then got involved in a cause to “defend America” and was loud, obnoxious and got in the face of progressives (all while being supported by multimillion dollar political entities) and then subsequently (verbally and personally) attacked by the progressives ... would you be defending that ‘kid' and his right to be vocal’?

I think for most who have an issue about Hogg being an inexperienced 'kid' who has become mildly politically influential, it isn’t about the fact that he is saying something ... it is that they don’t like what he is saying.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

I think some of what you saw on the news was skewed. Ground ROE was very clear, we had the absolute right of self defense, regardless of the apparent age of the person shooting at us. Granted, in that part of the world due to diet and that we (Americans) tend to be physically bigger than Middle Eastern men, a 25 year old Afghani may look to be 15. Regardless, in all my deployments i never was directed to not engage a hostile due to age. I have been directed to not engage adults and ‘kids’ when non combatant casualties were likely ... I think that was the right call.

So what that other guy said, was right, in that there have been times mil members were told 'don't shoot back, they are kids'... Interesting. I thought he might have been speaking hyperbole..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

As far as David Hogg, like it or not ... he is /was a kid, he may be 18 now (not sure). Hogg and his classmates were put into a situation I never had to deal with as a high schooler; thief passion on the issue is understandable.

Passion is one thing, using it to try and extort businesses (like with dicks, publix) and the like is imo taking it too far.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I do also think the anti gun establishment is using these kids to further their cause, the right does the same thing with veterans or victims of crime. Hogg may be getting into someone’s face, how that some responds is as much a sign of their character as it is Hogg and the people supporting him. Hogg is no expert on gun control policy; he is a figurehead-like face of an issue that is being used by the left to forward a long-standing agenda ... exactly in the the same manner as the random PFC or SGT who was wounded in OEF or OIF who is brought out to talk about what we need to do in the Middle East regarding ISIS or Islamic extremism, not an expert in foreign policy just because they served and were wounded.

IMO the difference there, is a soldier who got wounded in the field, has had a lot more life experience, AND was actually a victim. Hogg, just was a person at the school (if you believe some reports, he was in an entire different building) or via others, he wasn't even at the school but biked in. So i can't see how the two are seen as similar..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

If the situation was somewhat reversed: a flag-waiving, football playing, right leaning kid whose school was shot up or bombed by a ISIS inspired terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar”... who then got involved in a cause to “defend America” and was loud, obnoxious and got in the face of progressives (all while being supported by multimillion dollar political entities) and then subsequently (verbally and personally) attacked by the progressives ... would you be defending that ‘kid' and his right to be vocal’?

I'd be equally as against that 'kid', if he was going about it in the bullying manner Hogg is..

So what that other guy said, was right, in that there have been times mil members were told 'don't shoot back, they are kids'... Interesting. I thought he might have been speaking hyperbole..

There could have been, that is not the ROE. That would make it the decision of the commander, which is the commander’s to make.

Originally Posted by garhkal

Passion is one thing, using it to try and extort businesses (like with dicks, publix) and the like is imo taking it too far.

I think you are confusing extortion and boycotting. Do you find it as equally “too far” when conservative group organize boycotts of businesses?

Originally Posted by garhkal

IMO the difference there, is a soldier who got wounded in the field, has had a lot more life experience, AND was actually a victim. Hogg, just was a person at the school (if you believe some reports, he was in an entire different building) or via others, he wasn't even at the school but biked in. So i can't see how the two are seen as similar..

Have you ever been shelled or subject to indirect fire? I would offer whether or not Hogg or anyone else was in the same building, they still endured the event, if he was not there at all that day, not so much ... it doesn’t mean he is not grieving for lost classmates & teachers. Not knowing if your classroom door will be the next one the shooter enters would be traumatic ... probably as traumatic as living in London during the bombings in WWII or being sent to a shelter at a FOB or AUAB, the unknown is pretty bad as well and has traumatized trained military professionals. What do you think that does to a kid, who just showed up for class?

The fundamental difference is the soldier is a soldier who has (for the last 40+ years) been a volunteer for war time / combat duty ... those kids just went to school that day. They have a reasonable expectation that their government and police are protecting them from things like a school shooter; I expect to be shot at in Iraq, not at the local school. Hogg may be a physically & mentally ‘weak’ person not suited for military work or law enforcement, that is the function of the police (to protect and serve) or the military overseas. While school shootings are statistically a small total of gun deaths, this was not an issue when you or I were in high school, we are failing. Does this mean we need to pass more gun control laws? I don’t think that is a solution based answer. At the same time, attacking Hogg is akin to attacking a soldier who becomes a pacifist after a traumatic indirect fire experience.

While I agree that someone willing to sacrifice freedom for protection deserves neither... I don’t like the lack of effort on this. I don’t agree with Hogg, I am glad he is energized. Frankly, our generation got lazy when it came to things like this. In the 60s and early 70s there was a lot of political activism, in the 80s and the 90s not so much.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

There could have been, that is not the ROE. That would make it the decision of the commander, which is the commander’s to make.

Fare enough..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I think you are confusing extortion and boycotting. Do you find it as equally “too far” when conservative group organize boycotts of businesses?

There is imo a difference between me say, calling up friends/family/posting "no one buy from starbucks", which would be a boycott, and me calling for not only people to boycott starbucks, but call every company that supplies or does business with them, and DEMAND either they acquiess to stop doing business with starbucks or get shut down. The latter, smacks of extortion.
Just like if i say "lets go do a sit in in their place of business, stopping regular folk from getting in/out."

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

While school shootings are statistically a small total of gun deaths, this was not an issue when you or I were in high school, we are failing. Does this mean we need to pass more gun control laws? I don’t think that is a solution based answer.

But is it really guns that are the problem? OR something in society itself?
Do you remember when you could go buy a gun from the sears catalogue, or your school had shooting teams/drill teams? Guns imo were a lot MORE prevalent in/on/around schools in the 50s to 90s.. BUT we didn't see anywhere NEAR the # of shootings.. Hell, according to two sites i have been on tracking them, there were a total of (IIRC) 64 shootings from 1940 to 1985. SIXTY FOUR in 45 years.

Then in the 90s alone we had 49, just in that decade, jumping to 69 in the 2000s..

There is imo a difference between me say, calling up friends/family/posting "no one buy from starbucks", which would be a boycott, and me calling for not only people to boycott starbucks, but call every company that supplies or does business with them, and DEMAND either they acquiess to stop doing business with starbucks or get shut down. The latter, smacks of extortion.
Just like if i say "lets go do a sit in in their place of business, stopping regular folk from getting in/out."

That is boycotting, not extortion. Conservative groups do this too ... I have never seen you comment on it then; is it that you don't like the concept or you don't like what is being argued? Dicks made a business decision, they assessed they had more to loose by not changing than they did by maintaining the status quo.

Originally Posted by garhkal

But is it really guns that are the problem? OR something in society itself?
Do you remember when you could go buy a gun from the sears catalogue, or your school had shooting teams/drill teams? Guns imo were a lot MORE prevalent in/on/around schools in the 50s to 90s.. BUT we didn't see anywhere NEAR the # of shootings.. Hell, according to two sites i have been on tracking them, there were a total of (IIRC) 64 shootings from 1940 to 1985. SIXTY FOUR in 45 years.

Then in the 90s alone we had 49, just in that decade, jumping to 69 in the 2000s..

So what changed? Guns certainly didn't.

In part I think it is the availability of firearms; I think the larger / unaddressed issue is the decline the value of life and reduced mental health care.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

That is boycotting, not extortion. Conservative groups do this too ... I have never seen you comment on it then; is it that you don't like the concept or you don't like what is being argued? Dicks made a business decision, they assessed they had more to loose by not changing than they did by maintaining the status quo.

We only boycott that business.. NOT any that do business WITH That one. Such as what's happening with businesses that do advertising/financial support to the NRA...

But it seems i won't convince you of my POV here, so i will drop this part.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

In part I think it is the availability of firearms; I think the larger / unaddressed issue is the decline the value of life and reduced mental health care.

Thing is, BITD they were a lot MORE available than they are now.. No waiting periods, no backround checks, no licensing needed etc..

We only boycott that business.. NOT any that do business WITH That one. Such as what's happening with businesses that do advertising/financial support to the NRA...

That is not correct; easily found on the internet of conservative groups doing the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by garhkal

Thing is, BITD they were a lot MORE available than they are now.. No waiting periods, no backround checks, no licensing needed etc..

Waiting periods for handguns have been around since the early 70's, background checks in limited fashion since 1968 and more enforced since the Brady Act was signed into law in 1993 liscensing and registration since the 60's depending on where you live.

Also, today I can go online and complete outfit a uber-tactical AR15 etc. That wasn't doable when I was a kid.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

Waiting periods for handguns have been around since the early 70's, background checks in limited fashion since 1968 and more enforced since the Brady Act was signed into law in 1993 liscensing and registration since the 60's depending on where you live.

So that to me, indicates guns are LESS available now, cause of the backround checks/waiting periods etc, than they were back in the 50s to 80s..

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Also, today I can go online and complete outfit a uber-tactical AR15 etc. That wasn't doable when I was a kid.

Which to me is stupid. Kind of hard to do the backround checks via online sales.

So that to me, indicates guns are LESS available now, cause of the backround checks/waiting periods etc, than they were back in the 50s to 80s.

Maybe weapons were 'more available' in the 50s, once you get into the 60s the legal checks started coming into play; this likely predates you and I buying weapons. Back then you had to physically walk into a store, in some limited cases you could do ordering through the mail.

My frame of reference is Louisiana in the mid to late 80's, me getting a weapon now is much easier than it was then and I live in a state with pretty restrictive gun laws now.

Again, I do think the internet and online gun sales makes weapons easier to get ... which I would say is more available.

Bottom line for me: I think the time to have a discussion on gun violence in our country is way overdue; this will be an uncomfortable discussion with regard to things like the 2d Amendment, cities like DC & Chicago who have very restrictive gun laws that have done ZERO to curtail gun violence, the correlation between mental health issues and gun violence -- especially at schools. A discussion like this isn't bound to happen any time soon, too many partisan issues and compromise is becoming extinct.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.